Piers Morgan Uncensored: “Trump Has UNLEASHED” US And Israel ATTACK Iran | With Mike Pence & Naftali Bennett

Date: March 2, 2026
Host: Piers Morgan
Featured Guests: Mike Pence, Naftali Bennett, Anna Kasparian, Glenn Greenwald, Jonathan Conricus, General Mark Kemet, Goldie Gamari

Episode Overview

This high-stakes episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored addresses the historic and highly controversial joint US-Israeli assault on Iran, termed “Operation Epic Fury,” which has resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader and targeted regime infrastructure. The episode explores the ramifications for the Middle East and global order, interrogating the legal, moral, and strategic justifications for war, and debating possible scenarios for Iran’s future. Special guests include former US Vice President Mike Pence, ex-Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, and a lively panel featuring voices from the US, Israeli, and Iranian perspectives.

Key Topics and Discussion Points

1. Context of the US-Israel Attack on Iran

• Piers Morgan’s Opening Reflection
  • Morgan underscores the unprecedented nature of the US and Israeli attack on Iran, highlighting uncertainties about the aftermath, including regional stability, the fate of Iranian protestors, and the legitimacy of justifications offered by President Trump.
  • "It's a moment of history which will forever reshape the Middle East.... Trump's legacy will surely now be defined by what happens next." (00:41)

2. Interview: Mike Pence (Former US Vice President)

(02:58–20:56)

a. Justifying Operation Epic Fury

• Moral Justification:

  • Pence argues the operation confronts a 47-year-long war waged by Iran against the West, citing the 1979 Tehran Embassy hostage crisis and Iran’s support for terrorist proxies.
  • "The real objective here is to confront a war that started 47 years ago." (03:24, Pence)

• Legal Justification & International Law:

  • Pence suggests Western nations have been unfairly constrained by international law, while Iran is not. Asserts that Iran's reconstitution of its nuclear program, threats to US and Israeli interests, and missile development justified preemptive action.
  • "International law for literally generations has been that terrorist organizations and the leading state sponsor of terrorism... can strike without being hit back directly." (06:38, Pence)

b. Comparisons to Past Conflicts

• Morgan draws a parallel with the Iraq War, raising the specter of uncertain post-conflict outcomes and failed planning.
  • Pence claims the current action resembles the Persian Gulf War (1991) more than Iraq 2003—focused, overwhelming force with defined objectives, not occupation.
  • "The comparison... is more analogous to the Persian Gulf War than to the Iraq war." (11:05, Pence)

c. Allies and Trump Doctrine

• Pence criticizes the UK’s initial hesitation, urging PM Starmer and European powers to show unity.

  • "Prime Minister Starmer should yield to our shared history and not wait for Iran to strike any further at UK interests." (14:58, Pence)

• Rebuts charges that Trump betrayed his “America First”/anti-war platform, arguing Trump is not an isolationist and that the operation protects US interests, reminiscent of previous Trump-era military interventions.

  • "President Trump, with the greatest military force on earth, allied with Israel... is purposing to finish it." (18:47, Pence)

3. Panel Discussion & Debate

(21:00–61:52)

a. Was This War for US or for Israel?

(Anna Kasparian, Goldie Gamari, Jonathan Conricus, General Mark Kemet, Glenn Greenwald)

• Anna Kasparian:

  • Argues Iran poses no direct threat to the US; frames the war as waged on behalf of Israel’s regional ambitions.
  • "This is about a regime change war on behalf of Israel. Israel would like to be the hegemon in the Middle East." (23:56, Kasparian)

• Goldie Gamari:

  • Praises the US & Israel action, representing an Iranian diaspora view that sees an opportunity for a free Iran and frames the Ayatollah’s death like the Hitler analogy.
  • "We Iranians... are so grateful... the death of Khamenei, that's like the equivalent of hearing the news of the death of Hitler." (48:25, Gamari)

• Jonathan Conricus (IDF):

  • Stresses Iran’s sustained sponsorship of attacks on Israel and region-wide proxies. Pushes back on claims of US manipulation or Israeli warmongering, highlighting security concerns.
  • "We are surrounded by about five or six different terrorist organizations that are funded by Iran..." (55:22, Conricus)

b. Civilian Casualties & School Bombing Controversy

• Multiple conflicting reports about the Israeli–US operation leading to the bombing of an Iranian girls’ school and the question of responsibility (US, Israel or the IRGC).

  • "It's a messy situation... I can't really make sense of what happened..." (26:42, Conricus)

• Kasparian and Comricus clash repeatedly over Israeli responsibility for civilian casualties; tempers flare with accusations of hypocrisy and atrocity.

c. “American Soldiers Dying for Israel” – Trope Debate

• Heated exchange on whether criticism of US military involvement in Mideast wars as “for Israel” constitutes an antisemitic trope.

  • "How is it a trope to see American soldiers die on behalf of Israel’s wars?" (25:23, Kasparian)

• General Kemet and Comricus reject the framing, refusing to “dignify” the accusation, noting the complexities of alliance and legality.

  • “I’m not gonna dignify that with...” (35:34, Kemet)

d. Risks of Mission Creep and Regime Change

• General Kemet adamant:
  • The goal is not ground occupation or open-ended regime change, but decapitation of nuclear/military leadership. Warns against repeating Iraq.
  • "The purpose of this military force is to get back to the negotiating table..." (31:26, Kemet)

e. Historical Parallels and US Hypocrisy?

• Glenn Greenwald launches a comprehensive critique of the moral case, drawing links to past disastrous US interventions (Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam).

  • "It is astounding to me that somebody like Mike Pence or so many other people who lied to the public... are now just speaking as though none of it ever happened." (40:24, Greenwald)

• Highlights Western support for other dictators, doubts regime-change outcomes, and calls the “freedom and democracy” rationale disingenuous.

f. Iranian Regime’s Future—Optimism vs Caution

• Goldie Gamari: Predicts regime collapse by Persian New Year (March 20), citing signs of defection among IRGC; equates current events with liberation.

  • "Many of them are already laying down their weapons. For those... the only option is to exterminate them." (61:11, Gamari)

• General Kemet: Skeptical about imminent regime change, referencing resilience and loyalty within Iran’s armed organs. (60:09, Kemet)

4. Interview: Naftali Bennett (Former Israeli Prime Minister)

(62:49–70:10)

a. Was This “Israel Dragging America into War”?

• Bennett disputes claims of US manipulation, stressing shared strategic objectives.
  • “Israel doesn’t drag anyone and allies don’t drag each other into anything. Allies work together toward a shared goal…” (63:29, Bennett)

b. Iranian Threat and Victory Conditions

• Emphasizes Iranian advances in nuclear and ballistic missile technology; paints the attack as self-defense to halt existential threats now, while possible.

  • “If we had not acted now, later on we could not act and by then Iran would have gone nuclear..." (64:47, Bennett)

• Victory would be Iran’s total dismantlement of nuclear/missile programs, with the broader (but less certain) hope of Iranian society rising up against the regime under new conditions created by US-Israeli strikes.

c. Israel’s Nuclear Ambiguity

• Piers repeatedly presses Bennett on whether Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
  • Bennett issues Israel’s traditional ambiguous stance: “We’re not going to be the first ones to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.” (65:49, Bennett)
• Maintains Israel’s existential threats justify its posture, and frames Israeli action as “doing the world’s work” in curtailing genocidal regimes.

d. Vision for Iran’s Future

• Bennett: The operation sets Iran’s “chains of oppression” weaker, opening the possibility—but not the guarantee—of a people’s uprising.
  • “…the chains of oppression… are becoming weaker and weaker, but they'll have to sort of remove those chains and rise up. This is something we cannot guarantee.” (68:56, Bennett)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Mike Pence: "President Trump has unleashed the armed forces of the United States…to take the fight to the heart of terrorism, which is the mullahs in Tehran." (03:24)
• Anna Kasparian: “This is about a regime change war on behalf of Israel. Israel would like to be the hegemon in the Middle East.” (23:56)
• General Mark Kemet: “We can't get mission creep in this operation. Seen it, been there, done it.” (31:26)
• Glenn Greenwald: “Everything [Pence] said in justification... was exactly the things that he and all the other American leaders who wanted this war in 2002 and 2003 were saying then.” (40:24)
• Goldie Gamari: "We Iranians... are so grateful... the death of Khamenei, that's like... the death of Hitler." (48:25)
• Jonathan Conricus: "These organizations, Hamas... Hezbollah... are all funded, orchestrated by and armed by Iran... to annihilate the State of Israel." (55:22)
• Naftali Bennett: "Israel doesn't drag anyone... allies work together towards a shared goal." (63:29)
• Bennett (on nuclear ambiguity): “Israel has always been clear that we're not going to be the first ones to introduce nuclear weapons to the region.” (65:49)

Key Timestamps

• 00:41 – Piers Morgan’s setup of the episode’s stakes and uncertainties
• 02:58–20:56 – Interview with Mike Pence
• 21:00–61:52 – Extended panel debate (Kasparian, Gamari, Greenwald, Conricus, Kemet)
• 62:49–70:10 – Interview with Naftali Bennett
• 65:49–67:46 – Nuclear weapons ambiguity and Israel’s regional security posture

Tone & Dynamics

The episode is combative and tense, especially during the panel segment. Anna Kasparian and Glenn Greenwald provide critical, antiwar, and anti-interventionist perspectives, often challenging Israeli and American guests and drawing heated rebuttals. Emotional, sometimes personal exchanges underline the deep divisions over US and Israeli security policy, the regional power balance, and the human cost of war. Morgan keeps the discussion moving, pressing for clarity on legal justifications and the strategic ambiguities of America’s new Middle East war.

Summary Verdict

For listeners, this episode delivers an unfiltered, wide-ranging look at the myriad controversies surrounding Operation Epic Fury and the wider US-Israeli approach to Iran. It offers rare direct debate between pro- and anti-intervention guests, while never shying from global implications, Western hypocrisy, and the perennial question: what comes after the bombs?